Sunday, January 11, 2026 AD / Rajab 22, 1447 AH
Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani
 New question: I have been working for many years in the governmental system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Considering the disregard for justice and the blatant acts of oppression committed against the rights of people in these institutions, is there any justification for continuing to work in this system? Click here to read the answer. New saying: A significantly important and enlightening saying from His Eminence about the condition for the Mahdi’s advent. Click here to read it. New critique: Please mention the name of the university or religious school from which His Eminence Khorasani has graduated; because no matter how much I searched, I did not find his name nor his fame as a famous writer, researcher, or religious man in Afghanistan. Click here to read the response. Visit home to read the most important contents of the website. New letter: An excerpt from His Eminence’s letter to one of his companions, in which he advises him and frightens him from Allah. Click here to read it. New lesson: Lessons from His Eminence on the fact that the Earth is never without a man knowledgeable in the entire religion, whom Allah has appointed as a caliph, Imam, and guide on it by His command; Authentic Hadiths from the Prophet about it; Hadith No. 22. Click here to read it. New remark: The remark “Inverted era” by “Elias Hakimi” has been published. Click here to read it. New video: A new video with the subject “The Call of Return to Allah” has been published. Click here to watch it. Visit home to read the most important contents of the website.
loading

For example, the penal rulings of Islam have been legislated in consideration of the full realization of Islam and suited to a time and place where the other rulings of Islam are in effect as deterrent factors. With these rulings in effect, there remains no cause for committing crimes, and accordingly, committing them in this situation is unnatural and necessitates the prescribed punishment. For instance, the ruling of cutting off a thief’s hand has been legislated in consideration of the full realization of Islam and suited to a time and place where the economic rulings of Islam and its preventive measures—such as the just distribution of wealth and the payment of Zakat and Khums—are in effect; not a time and place where the economic rulings of Islam are not in effect, the distribution of wealth is unjust, Zakat and Khums are not paid as they must be, and, accordingly, the motive for theft exists, and the deterrent against it is absent. This means that if someone commits theft during a time of non-Islamic governance and in a place where the concrete and public rulings of Islam are not in effect, he does not deserve the prescribed punishment for theft, and applying it to him is unjust and contrary to the intention of the Legislator. Similarly, the implementation of other penal rulings is contingent upon the establishment of Islamic governance and the implementation of the original form and the entirety of the rulings of Islam. Before that, their implementation is neither beneficial nor appropriate; because Allah has legislated these rulings to be implemented in His governance, suited to a time and place where a person on His behalf, with full knowledge of the entirety of these rulings and complete ability to apply them to their real-world cases, holds the reins of affairs, thereby exercising His governance and manifesting His justice based on these two advantages[1]. Likewise, the main executor of His rulings at the time of their revelation was the Prophet. This reality influenced and was taken into consideration in their legislation, to the extent that it is not far-fetched that if these rulings had been revealed to someone other than him or someone like him, they might have taken a different nature. This means that the implementation of Islamic hudud by those who are not knowledgeable of all the rulings of Islam and are not capable of enforcing all of them is not permissible, without it being permissible for them to abandon implementing Islamic hudud.

↑[1] . This may be attested to by what has been narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family), and from Ali, Umar, Hudhayfah, Abu al-Darda’, Zayd ibn Thabit, and others, that they said: «لَا تُقَامُ الْحُدُودُ فِي أَرْضِ الْعَدُوِّ» (al-Kharaj by Abu Yusuf, p. 194; Sunan of Sa‘id ibn Mansur al-Fara’id Ila al-Jihad, vol. 2, pp. 234 and 235; al-Khilafiyyat by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 7, p. 262; Tahdhib al-Ahkam by al-Tusi, vol. 10, p. 40); “Hudud are not to be carried out in the enemy’s land,” considering that “the enemy” includes hypocrites just as it includes disbelievers, for Allah Almighty has said: ﴿هُمُ الْعَدُوُّ فَاحْذَرْهُمْ (Al-Munafiqun/ 4); “They are the enemy, so beware of them”—and unjust leaders are among hypocrites. It has also been narrated from Ali that he said concerning the Khawarij: “If they rise up against a just leader, then fight them; but if they rise up against an unjust leader, then do not fight them” (Musannaf of ibn Abi Shaybah, vol. 7, p. 559; Manaqib Amir al-Mu’minin by Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kufi, vol. 2, p. 332; Ilal al-Shara’i‘ by ibn Babawayh, vol. 2, p. 603; Tahdhib al-Ahkam by al-Tusi, vol. 6, p. 145), and from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, his father, and his son Musa that they said: “If a thief steals from the threshing floor of an unjust leader, then there is no cutting (of the hand) on him—he has only taken his right. But if he does so under a just leader, then cutting is on him” (Tadhhib al-Ahkam by al-Tusi, vol. 10, p. 128). Abu Hanifah has also said: “Hudud are not obligatory in Dar al-Harb (lands in a state of war against Islam) unless an Imam or the deputy of an Imam is with them” (Hilyat al-Ulama’ Fi Ma‘rifat Madhahib al-Fuqaha’ by al-Shashi, vol. 7, p. 671). He has even stated absolutely: “If a Muslim drinks wine or commits fornication in Dar al-Harb, and then he is brought before us after he has come out to Dar al-Islam (the lands of Islam), the hadd is not carried out on him” (Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha’ by ibn Jarir, p. 82). Ibn al-Munḏir has attributed this view to the people of opinion, saying: “Because he did that in a place where the rulings of Muslims do not apply to him” (al-Ishraf Ala Madhahib al-Ulama’ by ibn al-Munḏir, vol. 4, p. 144), and al-Bayhaqi has attributed it to the Iraqis (al-Khilafiyyat by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 7, p. 260). Bishr ibn al-Walid has also narrated from Abu Yusuf that, regarding a group of merchants who entered Dar al-Harb and some of whom stole from some others, there was no cutting according to Abu Hanifah’s view (Ikhtilaf al-Ulama’ by al-Tahawi, vol. 3, p. 473). Thus, among his conditions was that the act requiring a hadd must be committed in a land governed by Islam and where its rulings apply. This is precisely the same condition held by Mansoor (may Allah protect him)—except that he stipulates true Islam.